Chris, you are now getting personal with your responses, so I won't continue this discussion.
I have a very good understanding of this issue, and people familiar with my work know that. I have no need to troll this site, and have been very supportive of it in the past (and continue to be). If you try to copy and distribute the book you own, you'll find that ti is very much not 'free'. People who produce content and who have dealt with publishers know this - they know all about exclusive markets and publisher priorities. To say that it is 'fairly obvious' why people opt for NC - as the majority of them do - is unthinking and presumptive. -- Stephen Chris Harvey wrote: > > If a resource must be purchased before > it may be used, then it is not free in either sense. A person does not > have the freedom to use, modify, etc., something he or she must buy. > > > This is not true, free software is not a campaign against commerce, > its a campaign for freedom. Im not less free when I have to pay for a > hard copy of wikipedia. I think your really confused about this and it > would help if you visit the wiki, at this point I'm starting to wonder > if your just trolling us. I own this book > http://www.oreilly.com/openbook/freedom/ , the only way for me to get > that book was to buy it. I have the freedom to use, modify, etc > > Its fairly obvoius why most people use NC license and its really > nothing to do with preventing your work from being locked away. I > understand you have to make a living but so do we. > > Regards > Chris > > On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 6:55 AM, Stephen Downes <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > > > Chris Harvey wrote: > > > > I think he supports open access and perhaps open source and freebie > > software. Free software is a matter of freedom not price. > > > I am well aware of the distinction between 'free as in freedom' and > 'free as in beer'. I suppose 'free as in freedom'. > > My objection to commercial use is that it is a business model > supported > by *denying* access to resources. If a resource must be purchased > before > it may be used, then it is not free in either sense. A person does not > have the freedom to use, modify, etc., something he or she must buy. > > I appreciate that many of the other conditions of the free culture > license - such as the use of non-proprietary media - serve to mitigate > the excesses of commercial sales of open content. My belief is > that the > full set of such stipulations, crafted so as to close all loopholes, > would be tantamount to the 'con-commercial' clause. > > -- Stephen > > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "WikiEducator" group. To visit wikieducator, go to: http://www.wikieducator.org To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
